In its January 11 editorial, “Ron Paul’s Appeal,” the Washington Post gives the Texas Republican a deserved cuffing for his obviously bigoted, segregationist past and his other follies, including his suspicions regarding a “NAFTA superhighway,” presumably intended to put every good old boy in Texas out of work.
After having established the fact that Mr. Paul believes in a lot of nonsense, much of it dangerous, the Post goes on to reveal the worst: “Mr. Paul goes so far as to express understanding of Osama bin Laden’s antipathy toward U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, which, Mr. Paul says, created the “incentive” for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”
The only problem is, it’s a well-known fact that U.S troop presence in Saudi Arabia* was the catalyst for Bin Laden’s terrorist assaults on U.S. interests, both here and in the Middle East. As author Christian Alfonsi notes in his excellent book, Circle in the Sand, U.S. policy makers received frequent warnings that presence of a substantial number of U.S. troops could lead to disaster. During the leadup to the first Iraqi War, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman, warned the administration that “It remains our judgment that Saudi and Arab political realities preclude a U.S. military presence in the Islamic holy land which appears to be open-ended or semi-permanent.” During the war itself, a report issued by a committee headed by Richard Clarke stated that “A permanent U.S. presence will provide a rationale for, and could become a target for, the terrorist threat that will outlive the war.” Of course, the U.S. received frequent complaints from the Saudis themselves.
Why does the Post attack Ron Paul most aggressively on the one thing he gets right? Because the Post doesn’t want its readers to know the truth. It’s a strange way for a “great newspaper” to act.
*I originally said “Iraq.” Sloppy!
